SPE-179096-MS

Localized Extreme Coiled Tubing Wall Loss - Causes and Remediation

Practices
Steven Craig, Tomas Padron, Simon Smith, Luis Pinero, and Joshua Herald, Baker Hughes

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing & Well Intervention Conference & Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, USA, 2223 March
2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
The causes and associated remediation practices of most coiled tubing failures are well-known and
detailed in multiple technical papers (Crabtree 2008, van Ardrichem & Larsen 2002, Burgos et al. 2007).
One type of failure that has more limited exposure is excessive wall loss due to abrasion, occurring
primarily in chrome completions. Significant wall loss over a large area typically requires the string be
retired from service. On occasion, this damage has occurred during only a few operating runs. Retiring
strings early is financially unacceptable, and in certain global locations, replacement strings can take
months to arrive, resulting in a failure to meet operational objectives. This paper will detail the
background on this type of failure observed in Azerbaijan, New Zealand and the USA, the failure analysis,
results from pipe inspections, mitigation plans, and their associated results in reducing the frequency of
incidents.
Analysis of incidents in the three markets started with an early notice of wear on a concentric string
for offshore use in chrome completions. This wear detection resulted in a full string inspection to
determine future life. While this string was retired, mitigation practices included mandating a wetted
and/or lubricated wellbore and greater tracking of wall loss. The second market experienced a significant
number of cases of premature failure, primarily on 1 -in. coiled tubing (CT) run in chrome completions.
Significant tracking of pipe movement versus location of the damage was completed to optimally target
the use of friction-reducing lubricants. The third market used a 2-in. concentric string for 14 runs in a
single L80 well. Here, flat spots exceeded 60% of wall loss, and several compressive failures occurred on
the reel. In addition, galling with material transfer was observed. Mitigation practices include the use of
pipe straighteners, wetted and lubricated completion in areas of high contact force.
Mitigation practices have significantly reduced the extreme wall loss issues in the first market, and
similar programs have been recently implemented in the other two. Features common to all wells, such as
deviation profile, will be presented to identify high-risk wells and permit pre-job mitigation planning.
This paper covers data from 19 wells and various mitigation practices and the associated positive results.
The information will enable operators to better plan for success with CT well intervention
operations.
2 SPE-179096-MS

Introduction
Coiled tubing failures associated with severe wall thickness reduction (not including corrosion) have been
observed to be associated with two mechanisms:
Fine particles erosion, associated with the erosive effect of sand used for fracturing jobs shown in
Fig. 1.

Figure 1Wall Loss Due to Fine Particle Erosion

External abrasion due to friction between the coiled tubing string and the well completion (Fig. 2).
Failures by external abrasion are characterized by the following:

Figure 2Wall Loss Due to CT to Completion Abrasion

Severe wall thickness reduction normally localized in a short length (approximately 3 to 60 inches,
Fig. 3).

Figure 3Localized Severe Wall Thickness Loss Due to Abrasion

High external roughness and galling on the abraded surface (Fig. 4). Galling is a severe form of
wear on sliding components characterized by localized macroscopic material transfer, i.e., frag-
ments or surface protrusions that are visible on either or both surfaces.
SPE-179096-MS 3

Figure 4 External Roughness and Galling on Abraded Wall Loss Sample

Failures at localized bending points within the string; for example, areas close to bias welds (Fig.
5a), or pipe waviness (Fig. 5b) or close to the bottom hole assembly (BHA).

Figure 5a & bAbrasion Close to Bias Weld (left) & General Pipe Waviness (right)

Incident History
On review of a failure incident database from 2005 (date of first noted abrasion incident) to 2015, only
17 from 354 failures (5%) were attributed to external abrasion. Five of the failures occurred within a short
distance, less than 15 ft, from the BHA. These failures likely experienced abrasion throughout all well
movements due to excess residual curvature. Of the 12 failures that occurred away from the BHA, 9 cases
(75%) were in chrome completion. This paper will also discuss two other cases (both in Azerbaijan) where
initial light wall gouging was noted as the onset of abrasion and the strings were prematurely retired.
Fig. 6 shows the distribution of external abrasion failures by region and country. External abrasion was
more common on regions where the well completions were mainly 13% Cr (11 out of 17 total or 65%).
4 SPE-179096-MS

Figure 6 Abrasion Failures by Country

Within the authors organization, failures associated with external abrasion are not common, as shown
in Fig. 7. The number of cases per year in the period 2005 and 2015 was between 1 and 3, except for 2014
that presented 4 failures associated with external abrasion.

Figure 7Frequency of Abrasion Failures 2005 - 2015

Despite the low number of failures associated with external abrasion, incidents have occurred with very
low running footage and occurred very quickly, requiring additional investigation and mitigation plan-
ning. Table 1 contains a summary of all 17 failure incidents and the two premature retirement cases.
Failure incidents have occurred while operating CT with grades 80, 90 and 100 ksi, supplied by three
major US-based CT suppliers, and in size ranges from 1.5-in. conventional to 2.375-in by 1.25-in.
concentric strings.
SPE-179096-MS 5

Table 1Summary of Recorded Abrasion Incidents 2005 - 2015

The incident frequency is very small when compared the cases reported in SPE 81724 (Larsen &
Reichert 2003). That paper details a greater incident frequency (28 cases over 3 years) and includes details
of field failures, an associated laboratory abrasive testing program and a risk categorization system. As
many of the concepts from Larsen & Reichert are expanded on in this paper, their conclusions are
summarized:
Abrasion failures can occur with very low running footage.
Chrome completions, combined with a gas environment and deviated/tortuous well paths, are
particularly hostile.
6 SPE-179096-MS

Abrasion lab testing illustrated the wear rate was negatively affected by dry environment and
increased normal load.
Abrasion lab testing illustrated that material did not have a significant effect on wear rate.
A risk matrix was presented detailing low/medium/high risks for: CT stiffness, maximum dogleg
severity, applied normal force, level of fluid and lubricant presence.
A prediction of running footage was presented with respect to wall thickness for various risk
factors.

Selected Incidents to Jan 2014

During the time period 2005 to Jan 2014 the number of failure incidents investigated was 11 (see Table
1).
Details of note from this period include:
7 of 11 failures occurred in material rougher than black steel (chrome Cr13 or P110).
5 failures occurred within 15 ft of the whip end of the string.
6 failures occurred away from the whip end, with 5 failures having evidence of some level of
additional localized contact force.
3 failures were at step bias welds.
1 failure was at a field butt weld.
1 failure was on a string with wavy pipe (the wavy pipe, see Fig. 5b, root cause was due to
temperature treatment modifications by the steel supplier to the CT manufacturer(s)).
During this period best practice recommendations included:
Fluid-fill the chrome completions, when technically feasible.
Incorporate a filler CT wall thickness of 0.145 and 0.165-in. when using step tapers of 0.134 to
0.156-in. and 0.156 to 0.175-in.
Consider the use of non-step taper strings, either single wall or continuous change in thickness.

A more detailed look at the recent incidents is presented.

Azerbaijan (2014)
A five-well concentric jet pump campaign (new 2.375-in. 1.25-in. 90 ksi material) was conducted
between Dec 2013 and May 2014. The cleanout operation in the first well (Case 11 in Table 1) was
completed in two runs to depths of 11,000-ft and 14,600-ft when scratch marks were noted. For
subsequent operations the wells were fluid filled by adding a 2% lubricant solution in seawater. The
original string was used for two more wells (total of 13 runs and 196,000 running ft) with a third-party
inspection tool used to measure OD, ovality, wall thickness and metal loss/MFL amplitudes. The
inspection did not reveal any significant wall loss, and the shallow depths of the external scratchings could
not be accurately measured. Photographs of the scratches in the third-party report looked very similar to
Fig. 8b below, implying no significant damage increase had occurred subsequent to the original well.
However, given the high-profile and offshore nature of the project, it was decided to prematurely retire
this string. Ensuring a fluid-filled and lubricated completion, two additional wells were completed with
the replacement string. However, on the first operation with the replacement string (Case 13 in Table 1)
there were operational issues in keeping the well liquid filled and lubricated. As a result, similar scratch
marks were noted after three runs. Field practices were reviewed and 5 subsequent runs with 84,000
running ft were completed for the string without further scratching.
SPE-179096-MS 7

Figure 8a & b3D Deviation Plot of Case 11 Well & Observed Scratches

Details for Cases 11 and 13:

Concentric 2.375-in. x 1.25-in. 90 ksi tapered strings
Upper completions were all 7-in. Cr13L80, reducing to 5.5-in. Cr13L80 lower completions prior
to 5-in. sand screens
Deviation of 50 degrees during step out, increasing to 75 degrees through the formation (see Fig.
8a)
Case 11 longitudinal scratch marks noted after an initial run with widths of 0.4 0.6 in., increasing
to 0.751.0-in. after the second run. A total of 35,400 running feet with observed fluid height of
3,250-ft (see Fig. 8b).
Case 13 longitudinal scratches noted after three runs following operational challenges to fluid-fill
the well.
New Zealand (2014)
Concurrent with the Azerbaijan operation, a series of incidents occurred during operations on a single well
in New Zealand in May 2014. The operational scope was CT solids removal and sleeve shifting during
hydraulic fracturing operations. The well profile was S shaped, with a long step out at 50 degrees prior
to a vertical path through the formation zones (see Fig. 9) and the completed with 4.5-in. Cr13-95 tubing.
The well had sufficient bottom hole pressure (BHP) to support a column of fluid during the execution of
the operation.

Figure 9 3D Deviation Plot of Well Where Final Damage for Cases 14, 15 & 16 Occurred

A summary of each incident:

Case 14
1.75-in. 90 ksi, a 0.125 to 0.175-in. taper with approximately 700,000 rft over seven wells and 42
runs in prior operations.
8 SPE-179096-MS

Surface burst failure while POOH at a depth of 5,000 ft after two runs in the well
Failure cause was extreme abrasion causing a wall loss of 55% (Fig. 10a)

Figure 10 A, B & CA Left Case 14, B Mid Case 15 & C Right Case 16

Chrome content on the abraded surface was 4 5% (base CT figure 0.9%)

Failure location was 4-in. from a 0.125 to 0.134-in. bias weld
Case 15
1.75-in. 90 ksi, a 0.134 to 0.204-in. taper with approximately 100,000 rft over three wells and 6
runs in prior operations
Deepest previous operation 12,200 ft
Surface burst failure during hydrotest at 13,700 ft failure location only exposed to this well
Failure location had experienced 9 runs and approximately 140,000 rft in the well
Failure cause was extreme abrasion causing a wall loss of approximately 50% (Fig 10b)
Chrome content on the abraded surface was 9% (base CT figure 0.9%)
Failure location was not associated with a bias weld
Case 16
2-in. 90 ksi, a 0.134 to 0.203-in. taper with approximately 650,000 rft over ten wells and 43 runs
in prior operations
Pinhole observed during POOH at 6,600 ft after the first run for this string in this well.
Failure cause was extreme abrasion causing a wall loss of approximately 60% (Fig 10c)
The pinhole progressed to a transverse fracture during subsequent surface spooling.
Chrome content on the abraded surface was 11% (base CT figure 0.9%)
Failure location was not associated with a bias weld
A further string failure occurred several months later in a separate well in the same field. The
completion and profile were similar to the well mentioned above.
It is challenging to infer anything significant to the well from the case 12 and 14 failures because the
strings had been exposed to significant prior operations in other chrome completions in the field. The
string from case 15 illustrates how quickly extreme wall loss can occur and is of greater interest for further
analysis because the failure location was only exposed to operations in a single well.
USA (2015)
An incident occurred on a 2-in. by 1-in. 90 ksi concentric string operation in the USA in 2015 (Case 18
in Table 1). The string was new prior to operations in a single extended-reach well.
Concentric 2-in. 1-in. 90 ksi tapered string
Well completed with L80 4.5-in. tubing and L80 7-in. liner.
SPE-179096-MS 9

Deviation of 60 degrees during step out, increasing to 90 degrees through the formation (see Fig.
11)

Figure 113D Deviation Plot of Well for Case 18

Three locations of compressive failure (Fig. 12A) observed on the pipe intrados following 14 runs
and 180,000 rft

Figure 12 A, B & CA Left Compressive Failure, B Additional Waviness, C Right Abrasion Width

Metal shavings, subsequently confirmed as CT material, observed in the stripper on early runs
Subsequently, pipe parted during surface spooling operations (Fig. 2 right)
Root cause of failure external abrasion locally removing 60% of the string wall thickness across
~ 2.6-in. (40% of the circumference) Fig. 12C
Additional pipe waviness observed in the area of the failures (see Fig. 12B)
Failure was not associated with a bias weld
Fluid height in the well was between 500 to 1,000 ft MD (vertical section) for 12 of the 14 runs

This left the remaining 2,500 ft of initial build liquid filled

The well was completely liquid-filled for the other two runs
No excessive compressive loading had occurred to cause buckling in the wellbore.
No unusual weight, stripper, traction or tension pressures were observed as the subsequent failure
and nearby wavy locations were run through the injector head.
The metallurgical investigation showed the fracture occurred in an area that had a 0.07-in. wall (60%
material loss), severe galling was present with small external particles embedded into the coiled tubing.
The external particles were approximately 2.7 times harder than the coiled tubing and exhibited an
untempered martensite microstructure. This hard untempered martensite formed by a very fast cooling
from high temperatures (> 845 C or 1550 F) caused by the friction between the coiled tubing and the
10 SPE-179096-MS

well completion. The recovered metal shavings presented a highly plastic deformed ferrite-pearlite
microstructure, similar to the coiled tubing microstructure.

Additional Analysis

Comparison to Larsen & Reichert Risk Assessment

Larsen and Reichert (2003) presented a qualitative procedure from which the risk of external abrasion
damage occurring could be classified as High, Medium or Low, based on an evaluation of the main risk
factors. Their assessment was based on:
Normal Force incorporating CT relative stiffness (OD and wall thickness) and well trajectory
(max deviation and dog leg severity).
Wellbore fluid condition incorporating the percentage of gas present and expected coefficient of
friction
Together, these factors created an overall abrasion risk. For each wall thickness a maximum running
footage based on the overall abrasion risk was created.
Where sufficient well information was available, the Larsen and Reichert risk assessment protocol was
applied to the nineteen abrasion cases, shown in Table 1. In four cases insufficient information was
available. However, for the remaining fifteen cases twelve were considered High risk and 3 Medium
risk. This method certainly has worth for risk identification.

Well Profile, Contact Loading & Abrasive Footage

In reviewing the data four cases provided the opportunity for further analysis as they had failed or
experienced damage while operating in only a single well.
Case 11 Azerbaijan - new string, significant external scratching over two runs in a single well
Case 13 Azerbaijan - new string, significant external scratching over three runs in a single well
Case 15 New Zealand - fail point only ran in a single well
Case 18 USA - new string, all running footage in a single well
The analysis method was the same for all cases:
Plot deviation and dog leg severity (DLS) vs. measured depth
Identify the measured depth where DLS is > 1 deg/100ft
Review the tubing contact forces for POOH (lb/ft)
Compare to DLS
Calculate the abrasive footage (duration of RIH footage that the failed section experienced whilst
passing areas of high contact force/DLS > 1 deg/100 ft)
From fatigue software, obtain the cycles vs. measured depth plot
Identify the number of passes the failed section travelled over the area of high contact force/DLS
To illustrate, the above practices were applied to the string for case 15 New Zealand in an S-shaped
well. Fig. 13a illustrates the well 3D profile (axes are equal), and Fig. 13b illustrates the deviation and
DLS vs. Measured Depth.
SPE-179096-MS 11

Figure 13 A & BCase 15 A Left 3D Well Profile Plot, B Right Dev & DLS v MD

The resulting axial contact forces from pulling from 17,000 ft with 43,000 lbf weight and 58%
combined stress are shown in Fig. 14. The contact force very closely matches the dog leg severity plot.
Please note that contact force is the resultant axial load. The applied normal load would be axial load/0.24
(coefficient of friction used in this case).

Figure 14 Axial Contact Forces For Case 15 During POOH

The abrasive footage distance was estimated from the string cycles graph as shown in Fig. 15. In this
case the failure location was at 13,700 ft, and 8 passes were made on this well to 15,000 ft, with additional
shorter passes at approximately 14,500 ft and 15,500 ft, yielding a RIH abrasive distance of ~13,200 ft.
12 SPE-179096-MS

Figure 15Determination of Abrasive Distance

The same process as above was applied to the Azerbaijan and US wells, and the results are shown in
Table 2. To provide a comparison, two additional chrome completions were reviewed (a typical Eagle
Ford shale completed with L80 and a Gulf of Mexico deepwater completion Cr13 in both cases abrasion
issues were not observed) and their contact loads, length of deviation included in the table. The associated
3D deviation profile and deviation/DLS v measured depth plots for cases: 11, 13, 18, Eagle Ford and Gulf
of Mexico are shown in the appendix as Figs. 1620.

Table 2Comparison of Abrasive Distance, Dog Leg Severity & Length, Axial Contact Force
POOH Associated
String Fail or damage RIH abrasive Max DLS Max Deviation Length of Build Axial Contact Force
noted or comparison footage (ft) (deg/100 ft) (deg) (ft) (lbf/ft)

Case 11 Damage noted 15,000 4 75 ~3,500 ~3.5

Case 13 Damage noted 7,350 4 75 ~2,500 ~4
Case 15 Abrasion Fail 13,200 2.5 50 ~ 2,700 ~3
Case 18 Abrasion Fail 60,100 5 90 ~3,000 ~3
Eagle Ford Comparison N/A 20 92 1,000 ~12
Gulf of Mexico Comparison N/A 4.5 40 2,000 3

The above analysis of damage or failure incidents isolated to single well yields the following:
Focusing exclusively on maximum DLS and maximum deviation as risk factors can be misleading.
The max DLS may occur in the lateral as an azimuth change.
Eagle Ford shale operations have high contact force/high DLS but no history of abrasion
failures.
Additional well profile information is significant.
Duration of the build/DLS is shown to affect failures or initial abrasion evidence.
The New Zealand failure occurred with low: abrasive running footage, DLS, and contact force,
however, a relatively long build section was present.

Force plots showing areas of increased contact friction tend have similar high points as DLS plots,
especially in high step out wells.
Effect of Local Pipe Undulations
The applied contact forces shown in Table 2 above assume that a uniform load distribution is present. As
mentioned earlier, the majority of abrasive failures have some form of local additional bending present.
SPE-179096-MS 13

Localized bending will result in greater local contact forces than the uniform contact loads in Table 2. The
bending occurs from residual curvature close to the BHA, short duration changes in material stiffness (step
bias welds, field butt welds), or other undulations present in the string.
A simplified method of illustrating the increase in magnitude of local normal forces for point contact
can be calculated from the forces required to constrain residually curved pipe in a completion.
The normal forces required to constrain 90 ksi CT of varying sizes are shown in Table 3 below. In each
case the length being constrained was equivalent to 1/8 or 45 degree of a full circle residually curved CT.

Table 3Comparison of Normal Constraining Forces to Displace Residually Curved CT Within a 5.5-in. Casing
Gooseneck Radius Residual Normal Force to
CT Constrained Length Reel Diameter Radius Curvature Constrain
Description (ft) (in.) (in.) (in.) (lbf)

1.5-in.0.109-in. 12.5 80 72 190 168

1.75-in. 0.134-in. 14.3 90 72 220 247
2-in. 0.175-in. 16.1 90 100 247 370
2.375-in. 0.190-in. 19.2 100 100 295 486
2-in. 0.175-in by 1-in. 0.109-in. concentric 16.1 90 100 247 397
2.375-in. 0.190-in. by 1.25-in. 0.109-in. concentric 19.2 100 100 295 526

The rise in normal force as pipe stiffness increases illustrates that most mid-string abrasion failures
occur in larger sized pipe. The cases in Table 1 for the 1.5-in. CT are all local end effects and, being close
to the BHA, have exposure to abrasion on the complete wellbore.
Several of the cases in this paper relate to concentric operations (insert case or string numbers when
completed). Assuming that the inner string does not affect the residual curvature, the increase in normal
force for a concentric versus standard string is minimal.
The data in Table 3 assume a uniform pipe and illustrates the order of magnitude of theoretical
constraining forces. By the very nature of local undulations, non-uniform discontinuities (kinks) are
present that will change the above values and can be more accurately modelled using finite element
analysis. The presence of a significant local kink would result in significant contact forces being applied
throughout the completion regardless of DLS.

Completion Material Properties

As has been shown, the CT external abrasion failures were mainly experienced when the wells were
completed with 13% Cr pipe, but a few cases occurred on L-80 and P110 completions.
13% Cr is a quenched and tempered martensitic stainless steel grade. It can be obtained with different
levels of mechanical properties (i.e., Grades), for example from 80 to 110 Grade, being the grade number
related to the specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) in Ksi.
L80 and P110 are normally low-alloy steels in the quenched and tempered condition with SMYS of
80 Ksi and 110 Ksi, respectively.
API 5CT Specification for Casing and Tubing includes L80, L80-13Cr, and P110 Grades as options
for casing and tubing. According to the standard L-80 and P-110 can be seamless or electric welded pipe,
while L80-13 Cr can only be manufactured by the seamless process. The chemical compositions for these
Grades are included in Table 4. and the mechanical properties in Table 5.
14 SPE-179096-MS

Table 4 Chemical Composition (1)

Chemical Composition, mass fraction (%)

C Mn Mo Cr

Grade min. max. min. max. min. max. min. max. Ni max. Cu max. P max. S max. Si max.

L80 - 0.43 - 1.90 - - - - 0.25 0.35 0.030 0.030 0.45

L80-13Cr 0.15 0.22 0.25 1.00 - - 12.0 14.0 0.50 0.25 0.020 0.010 1.00
P110 - - - - - - - - - - 0.030 0.030 -

(1)Source: API 5CT Table C.4

Table 5Mechanical Properties (1)

Yield Strength (Ksi)

Grade min. max. Tensile Strength min. (Ksi) Hardness max. (HRC)

L80 80 95 95 23
L80-13Cr 80 95 95 23
P110 110 140 125 -

(1) Source: API 5CT Table C.4

L80 and L80-13Cr are controlled-hardness grades, and the maximum hardness that is specified in the
standard is 23 HRC. P110 has no limit regarding hardness, but the normal values can be 22 HRC to 29
HRC. This can be compared to the typical CT values of 80/90 ksi 18 20 HRC, 100 ksi ~ 25 HRC and
110 ksi of ~ 30 HRC. Not a significant difference in material hardness between the CT and typical
completions.
API 5CT in the section 7.12 establishes for L80 13Cr that the internal surface of the pipe shall be
free from scale after final heat treatment. In addition, it indicates the possibility for the purchaser to
specify additional requirements regarding the internal surface preparation in Annex H, section H.8. This
section establishes that the pipe inside surfaces shall meet the requirements for Sa 2-1/2 in ISO 8501-1
Preparation of Steel Substrates Before Application of Paints and Related Products - Visual Assessment
of Surface Cleanliness - Part 1: Rust Grades and Preparation Grades of Uncoated Steel Substrates and of
Steel Substrates After Overall Removal of Previous Coatings. Basically, this standard provides repre-
sentative photographic examples of the color changes imparted to steel that is dry-blasted with different
metallic and non-metallic abrasives.
Sa 2-1/2 blast-cleaning finish (near white metal) implies that mill scale, rust paint and foreign matters
are removed completely; any remaining traces are visible only as slight stains or discoloration in the form
of spots or stripes (see examples below Fig. 21).

Figure 21Sa 2 12 Surface Finish Examples Source www.transocean-coatings.com

SPE-179096-MS 15

As it was shown in Fig. 4, the external abrasion damage always presented high external roughness,
inferring that it is caused by the contact with a high roughness surface. From Livescu and Craig (2014)
linear coefficient of friction increases as the surface roughness of the completion increases (Table 6).

Table 6 Linear CoF vs. Material Roughness

Material Measured Roughness (m) Linear Coefficient Friction Against 90 ksi CT (room temp)

Low Roughness 4140 0.67 0.11 (in seawater)

Standard 4140 9.85 0.19 (in seawater)
Cr13L80 11.83 0.22 (in seawater)
Cr13L80 11.83 0.44 (dry)
P110 12.44 0.29 (in seawater)

From this, it can be established that the total friction force throughout the wellbore, and in consequence
the applied normal load, will increase the severity of abrasion damage as the well completion internal
roughness increases. Any treatment to reduce this internal roughness, like the dry-blasting included as a
Supplementary Requirement in API 5CT for 13 Cr materials, would be helpful in reducing the risk for
external abrasion.

Remediation Plans
Based on the above incidents current remediation plans focus on the following practices.
Risk Identification
Utilize the abrasion risk assessment matrix per Larsen & Reichert (SPE 81724)
Review duration of dog leg severity & contact friction force data
Review CT string make up and avoid using if double step wall thickness changes are present
Obtain surface finishing specifications for chrome completions from well operator
Operational Mitigation
Where practical fluid fill the well
Utilize metal to metal lubricant around upper deviation build areas
Utilize a pipe straightener, if rig up space permits, to remove observed undulations (only
available method to remove the increased damage potential caused by
undulations/deformations)
Observation for damage progression
Incorporate steps in the job program for field crews to pay more attention to pipe condition on
high abrasion risk wells
Incorporate steps in the job program to spot check pipe wall on the job using Ultrasonic
Thickness probe on high abrasion risk wells
Incorporate steps in the job program to check for metal shavings in the stripper / pressure control
equipment between runs on high abrasion risk wells.
Stop and examine all waviness and undulations when RIH
Flag and observe same sections for the onset of abrasion damage
If available, utilize real-time software to flag areas requiring future inspection
Consider use of continuous CT damage monitoring devices
Derating Damaged Section
16 SPE-179096-MS

Measure wall loss

Modify string input in TFA software and fatigue software to account for wall loss

Further Investigations
Opportunities exist for further investigations. These include:
A better understanding of the cause(s) behind CT undulations/local deformations.
Investigate the additional local loads that these deformations cause
Is CT speed a factor? Does this affect local temperatures that increase the risk of galling? Would
slower running and pulling speeds reduce heat buildup or would faster speeds/reduced time at
temperature mitigate the problem?
Investigate well profiles in Cr13 completions where abrasive damage has not been observed.
Incorporate automated reviews in job design software to highlight and warn of potential abrasion
issues.
Incorporate additional options in job design software to specify completion material and expected
surface roughness.

Conclusions
While statistically not a major CT failure cause, abrasive damage is of concern due to the quick onset of
failure leading to HS&E concerns and operational and economic challenges. In all failure cases, the failure
occurred as excessive wall loss over a short section, with evidence of external roughness and galling
present. In addition, most cases occurred in sections of the CT string where local contact loads were
present due to non-straight pipe in the area of the BHA, CT stiffness changes at tapered bias welds or in
the presence of local deformations. Four cases were examined where the abrasive damage could be
identified to exposure to a single well. Common to these well profiles were long sections in the upper
completion of deviation change not displaying significant dogleg severity. In two cases the build section
was dry, in the other two wells fluid levels were near to surface. Three of the wells were Cr13 completions
with one being L80 (the only mid-string L80 failure noted in the database). Updated remediation practices
and plans for future investigations were created.
Abrasive failures can affect all sizes/grades of CT (even smaller sizes)
Abrasive failure can occur after just 13,200 running ft! Need to be able to identify at the job
planning stage high risk wells
Contact force is a quatitative measure of abrasion risk and closely matches DLS
Can be managed (relatively simply) at an operational level lubricate fluids/keep well full/spot
check pipe/ pipe straightener

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the management of Baker Hughes Inc for permission to publish this
paper. In addition to the authors wish to thank Adrian Terry and Preston Saunders for previous internal
technical studies and Noel Atzmiller for his diligent manuscript proofreading.

References
API Specification 5CT, Specification for Casing and Tubing, 9th Edition, June 2011 / ISO 11960:20011 Petroleum and
Natural Gas IndustriesSteel Pipes for Use as Casing or Tubing for Wells.
Burgos, R., Mattos, R.F., and Bulloch, S., 2007. Delivering Value for Tracking Coiled Tubing Failure Statistics. Presented
at the SPE/ICoTA Conference held in Houston, Texas, 20 21 March 2007. SPE-107098. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/
107098-MS
SPE-179096-MS 17

Crabtree, A., R., 2008. CT-Failure Monitoring: A Decade of Experience. Presented at the SPE/ICoTA Conference held in
Houston, Texas, 12 April 2008. SPE-113676. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/113676-MS
ISO 8501-1: 2007 Preparation of Steel Substrates Before Application of Paints and Related Product (Sa 2 ).
Larsen, A.H. and Reichert, B.A., 2003. Coiled Tubing AbrasionAn Experimental Study of Field Failures. Presented at
the SPE/ICoTA Conference held in Houston, Texas, 8 9 April 2003. SPE-81724. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/ 81724-
MS
Livescu, S., and Craig, S.H., 2014. Increasing Lubricity of Downhole Fluids for Coiled Tubing Operations. SPE Journal
2014. SPE 168298. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/168298-PA
Van Adrichem, W., P., and Larsen, H., A., 2002. Coiled Tubing Failure Statistics Used to Develop CT Performance
Indicators. SPE Journal 2002. SPE 78808. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/78808-PA
18 SPE-179096-MS

Appendices

Figure 16 Case 11 3D Deviation Plot & Dev/DLS v Measured Depth

Figure 17Case 13 3D Deviation Plot & Dev/DLS v Measured Depth

Figure 18 Case 18 3D Deviation Plot & Dev/DLS v Measured Depth

Figure 19 Eagle Ford Comparison 3D Deviation Plot & Dev/DLS v Measured Depth
SPE-179096-MS 19

Figure 20 Gulf of Mexico Comparison 3D Deviation Plot & Dev/DLS v Measured Depth